“beneficial owner”

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) V. Jay Ketan Parikh Room No. 906, 9Th Floor 94-D, Thanee Heights Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe 66, Nepean Sea Road Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaipp6681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

Geneva, Switzerland. It is undisputed that during the course of search proceedings on the assessee no incriminating materials in respect of assessee being a beneficial owner of bank accounts in HSBC Bank (Suisse) SA Geneva, Switzerland were found. The assessee also denied in the statement recorded under section ... that he was beneficial owner of the foreign bank 4 Jay Ketan Parikh accounts held in HSBC Bank by 4 companies as mentioned elsewhere in this order. In the instant case, the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 16.10.2006 whereas the search

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Raj Hiten Parikh, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1224 & 1226/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Raj Hiten Parikh Dcit Cen. Cir-1(2), R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annex 42C, Laxmi Nivas, 87, बिधम/ Building, Pratistha Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006

information (hereinafter called as Base Note) was received from the French Government, under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) that the present assessee was a beneficial owner of undisclosed overseas bank accounts in the names of the companies Sulay Trading Ltd and Laptis Trading Ltd with HSBC Bank, Geneva. Therefore ... time of search, the assessee was shown "Base Note" as received from the French Authorities containing information about HSBC, Geneva, accounts and assessee being beneficial owner of such accounts. However, the assessee denied being beneficial owner of such accounts. A few days later the assessee produced a letter from HSBC

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) V. Jay Ketan Parikh Room No. 906, 9Th Floor 94-D, Thanee Heights Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe 66, Nepean Sea Road Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaipp6681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Vranda U. Matkari

Geneva, Switzerland. It is undisputed that during the course of search proceedings on the assessee no incriminating materials in respect of assessee being a beneficial owner of bank accounts in HSBC Bank (Suisse) SA Geneva, Switzerland were found. The assessee also denied in the statement recorded under section ... that he was beneficial owner of the foreign bank 4 Jay Ketan Parikh accounts held in HSBC Bank by 4 companies as mentioned elsewhere in this order. In the instant case, the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 16.10.2006 whereas the search

Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1274/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1275/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 511/C, 6Th Floor, Sunshine Chs Ltd. Off. Chandivli Farm, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. Pan: Aaica9489N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-5(1)(4), Room No. 569, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. V.G. Ginde, Advocate With Sh. Kumar Kale, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

agreement with the aforesaid proposition. Irrespective of the fact whether the shares are held in the capacity of real owner or the beneficial owner, the recipient of dividend would be eligible for claiming exemption under section 10(34) of the Act. We find support to our above view from

Arnav Gruh Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Arnav Gruh Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaaca4900E ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-32, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

handed over to the appellant till 31.03.2011. The directions given by the Ld CIT(A), without considering the fact that the appellant is a beneficial owner of the said property, is bad in law and needs to be dropped. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case

Rekha A Barot, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 9 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Rekha A. Barot, Dcit Central Circle-9(2)(1), 1, Ground Floor, Bharat Corporate 6Th Floor, Room No. 659, Avenue, Near Versova Police Station, Vs. Income Tax, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aenpb 5677 H Appellant Respondent

enjoyed by the assessee in th was enjoyed by the assessee in these transactions. Even though ese transactions. Even though assessee is a most beneficial owner however nothing was brought assessee is a most beneficial owner however nothing was brought assessee is a most beneficial owner however nothing was brought

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Investor was necessary. In view of the above, Hubtown was not in a position to exercise significant influence and was not the beneficial owner of the Company of shares exceeding 20% of the voting powers. M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. d. Attention is also invited that in any case

Sunshine Communiction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, he appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadales Rifaur M/S Sunshine Vs. Acit, Cc-5(4), Communication Pvt Ltd, Parimal Chambers, Thar & Co, 203, Capri Lalbaug, Bldg, Opp Hdil Towers Mumbai-400012. Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs4276L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Thar.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

concern. Thus, we are interpreting that the payments made by the assessee, as reflected in the books of accounts, amounts to beneficial owner ship of the assessee and eligibility to claim depreciation. In this regard we find support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court ... assessee though was not the legal owner of the vehicle, it has made the payment for acquisition of cars and thus, it is a beneficial owner. It is, therefore, held to be entitled for depreciation on the car. It has drawn the support from the decision of Electro Ferro Alloys

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte.Ltd ., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the laws of that Contracting State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent. 3. The term "royalties" as used ... services referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 5. 6. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT (It) Circle-3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the laws of that Contracting State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent. 3. The term "royalties" as used ... services referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 5. 6. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte.Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the laws of that Contracting State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent. 3. The term "royalties" as used ... services referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 5. 6. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

information (hereinafter called as Base Note) was received from the French Government, under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) that the present assessee was a beneficial owner of undisclosed overseas bank accounts in the names of the companies Sulay Trading Ltd and Laptis Trading Ltd with HSBC Bank, Geneva. Therefore ... time of search, the assessee was shown "Base Note" as received from the French Authorities containing information about HSBC, Geneva, accounts and assessee being beneficial owner of such accounts. However, the assessee denied being beneficial owner of such accounts. A few days later the assessee produced a letter from HSBC

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

information (hereinafter called as Base Note) was received from the French Government, under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) that the present assessee was a beneficial owner of undisclosed overseas bank accounts in the names of the companies Sulay Trading Ltd and Laptis Trading Ltd with HSBC Bank, Geneva. Therefore ... time of search, the assessee was shown "Base Note" as received from the French Authorities containing information about HSBC, Geneva, accounts and assessee being beneficial owner of such accounts. However, the assessee denied being beneficial owner of such accounts. A few days later the assessee produced a letter from HSBC

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2006-07

information (hereinafter called as Base Note) was received from the French Government, under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) that the present assessee was a beneficial owner of undisclosed overseas bank accounts in the names of the companies Sulay Trading Ltd and Laptis Trading Ltd with HSBC Bank, Geneva. Therefore ... time of search, the assessee was shown "Base Note" as received from the French Authorities containing information about HSBC, Geneva, accounts and assessee being beneficial owner of such accounts. However, the assessee denied being beneficial owner of such accounts. A few days later the assessee produced a letter from HSBC

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6364/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, ‘A’ Aidun Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Dhobhi Talao, John Crasto Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lane, Mumbai-400 002 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahps3906Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 247/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2018 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 2

kept in escrow account to meet the various unforeseen liabilities in future to be borne by the sellers cannot be treated as assessee is beneficial owner of the entire amount, even though the escrow bank account was opened in the name of assessee. He also noted that all other shareholders

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Article 11(5) specifically provides that the provisions of Article 12(1),(2) and (3) will not come into play ―if the beneficial owner of the interest, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the interest arises, through a permanent ... charging provisions of Article 12(1) and (2), which deal with taxability of interest in the source state, will not apply "if the beneficial owner of the interest, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the interest arises, through